If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I NEVER wrote that you "endorse racism".
Please stop lying and inventing quotes. Thanks.

What I did take offense to was you writing (paraphrasing) that you had no problem with racism until it was personal. Since no one would ever call you "The N-Word" (assuming, presumptuously, that you are Caucasian), in other words, making racism personal, you have no problem with African Americans being called "The N-Word". Yes? No?

My moral filosofy:
I have no problem with rape, pillage, and murder....unless it happens to me.
Actually, I don't really give a rat's ass what happens on this planet, just as long as it doesn't happen to me, y'know gets personal. Then it's wrong.

Hey, gotta take care of #1, right!

Great googly-moogly, somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed.

And here I thought my original comment was relatively harmless and its meaning was clear, but apparently I was wrong. Maybe I can straighten that out for the benefit of the more literal minded individuals that may happen upon my comment.

On this board, if somebody's post is thought to be 'offensive' because it is vulgar, racist, insulting, etc… that, in and of itself, is no reason for 'moderating' them. In this respect, I don't care about the language or point of view of the poster. Language, choice of words and how somebody reacts to others comments tells as much about an individual as their point of view.

1) Offensiveness to common morality
2) Relevance to silver issues
3) Frequency of re-posting the same views
4) Freedom of expression vs censorship

It takes a perspective consistent with the goals and auspices of the site to adjudicate a balance between the first three issues and the last. Roger was innocent on counts #1 and #2 but very guilty on #3. Someone who consistently spews neo-Nazi propaganda is probably guilty on counts #1, #2, and #3. It takes a moderator to make a judgment call on whether the mandate of the site has been violated.

The question is whether the Silverseek forum is a privately-owned and administered space, where it is perfectly within the owners' rights to impose quality-control standards, or whether it is a mystical expression of abstract freedom conceived in a dream of the foundling fathers. In that case, anything goes, and the conversation has to moderate itself, like balou2 said.

Maybe if there was a posting limit of, say, only five new threads per month and five responses per day. It might make people choose their words more carefully.

On this board, if somebody's post is thought to be 'offensive' because it is vulgar, racist, insulting, etc… that, in and of itself, is no reason for 'moderating' them.

So....now "we" pick and choose our spots for racism unopposed?

BACK OF THE BUS, N!GGER!

To MODERATE: to make less extreme; common, tolerable, reasonable, acceptable.

Not sure where you live, Bubba, but racism is UNacceptable in my neck o' the woods (and against the law, too).
If you would prefer racism to be an unmoderated behaviour on this board, well...why not just kick over the whole barrel of monkeys and have an out-and-out free for all? That should solve things.

To MODERATE: to make less extreme; common, tolerable, reasonable, acceptable.

Not sure where you live, Bubba, but racism is UNacceptable in my neck o' the woods (and against the law, too).
If you would prefer racism to be an unmoderated behaviour on this board, well...why not just kick over the whole barrel of monkeys and have an out-and-out free for all? That should solve things.

Good luck.

Obviously you have an ax to grind else you wouldn't be spending so much time being offended by my opinions as to what should or should not be moderated.

What's interesting is your casual offhand use of the word "bubba", which dictionary.com defines as:

bub·ba (bŭb'ə)
n. Slang
Chiefly Southern U.S. Brother.
A white working-class man of the southern United States, stereotypically regarded as uneducated and gregarious with his peers.

which some easily offended members could construe as a -gasp- racist slur.

This Bubba don't look none much like a "white working-class man" to me:

Takes all kinds of Bubbas.

Insulting someone on their level of education (or ignorance) is NOT racism.
Education is something that can be WILLFULLY controlled.
We are ALL born uneducated; we are NOT all born of the same colour.

It ain't what you mean when you insult somebody, it's how it will be interpreted, which is my point.

To me, and, I would hazard to most people, 'bubba' means 'white'. Did you think you were calling me an ignorant white cracker, or an ignorant black shrimp merchant?

Regardless, to keep this thread from being hijacked into some nit-picky pissing contest over who is 'right' - I'll just bow to your infinitely superior buddha nature and go pick some cotton as penance.

It ain't what you mean when you insult somebody, it's how it will be interpreted, which is my point.

Uuummm....yeah. I'm pretty sure that when you insult someone, you MEAN to hurt them, and you base your insult on your perception and/or knowledge of what will hurt your intended target. So, yes, it actually is "what you mean".

Based on your provided dictionary definition, calling you "bubba" was an insult; what it was not was racist. Big difference.

It's not about WHO is right, it's about WHAT is right.
Racism is not only not right, it's not even logical!
Thus the conclusion can be made that racist are illogical:

Any way you cut it, you complained about racism while using a racist term, regardless of your intention.

Bubba IS a derogatory term for 'white' southern ignoramuses - white good old boys. Sure, you can find other meanings for it, but not in the way you meant.

I'm certain you will pat yourself on the back with yet another well-thought-out reply to what I've just said, so I will let you have the last word, however, I find it amusing when even a well meaning defender of all that is good and holy lets slip a turn of phrase that is the very thing they were railing against - and then they can't appreciate the irony in that.

Trolls and censorship

There's been some questions as to what qualifies as needing moderation.

Here's a couple of suggestions.

We have several 'new' members that are bearish on silver - that's fine. We ALSO have several new members that aren't merely bearish, but overtly antagonistic about it.

A recent example:

Originally Posted by Barrelroll

…You weirdos treat your silver as if it was your little preciouses. When someone speaks ill of silver you psychos get awkwardly defensive.

Hoping silver returns to $7 just so all the douche bags here can eat crow.

Another recent example:

Originally Posted by augernaut

Definition: Pathological or compulsive hoarding is a specific type of behavior characterized by:
•acquiring and failing to throw out(OR TAKE A PROFIT)ON a large number of items that would appear to have little or no value to others (e.g., papers, notes, flyers, newspapers, clothes, SILVER)
•severe cluttering of the person's home so that it is no longer able to function as a viable living space(SILVER ALL OVER THE PLACE)
•significant distress or impairment of work or social life(BECAUSE GREED FOR SILVER)
About 15% of people with OCD report compulsive hoarding as their primary problem. While it usually begins in childhood, it often goes unnoticed until adulthood. People who hoard often have relatives who have also engaged in compulsive hoarding.
Hoarding does not seem to respond as well to medications such as Anafranil (Clomipramine) or Paxil (Paroxetine) as other forms of OCD. A cognitive behavioral approach may be more effective, as it specifically targets the harmful thoughts that are often present among people who hoard.

Neither of these posts are for the purpose of promoting discussion, they are specifically to antagonize, else, why call people who invest in silver 'douche bags' and express a wish that everybody here suffer m***ive losses as "Barrelroll" states, or compare people who stack silver to pathetic hoarders of worthless doo-dads as augernaut has done?

These individuals, and several like them, are not only relatively new to this forum, but they are overtly antagonistic. Occams razor suggests that both of them, and a few others, are likely the same individual who was recently banned newly returned with fresh accounts to deface the forum again.

I may not be able to define trolling, but I recognize it when I see it. There is no reason to allow people to continue to post if they demonstrate repeatedly a desire to antagonize as opposed to debate or discuss.

My 2¢ worth again.

Incidentally, I noticed that three letters in the word 'mås$ive" above were replaced with three dots. I think that's going a bit overboard on your wish to censor profanity. The word ås$ is hardly a profanity - it's an animal, just like a ßitch is a female dog - I actually have dog show magazines where people advertise their prize winning animal with ads that have headlines like "The ßitch is Back!" (had to use the german 'ss' substitute character 'ß' for 'b' else that would have been censored too - I'm all for cleaning things up but all this over the top censoring is going to accomplish is teaching people how to use alternate characters when they want to ACTUALLY be profane - the anti-profanity algorithm shouldn't remove combinations of letters inside of words like 'm***ive' forcing you to use 'ma$$ive' instead).